It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: The Latest Victim of the PC Police

page: 20
78
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Benevolent Heretic

XxNightAngelusxX
It IS a free speech issue, because people are flipping their $#@% because he spoke freely. I don't know how this could be clearer AS a free speech issue.


If you mean speaking freely, you're right. This is about speaking freely. But if you mean free speech, as outlined in the Constitution, it's not.




Explain the difference, maybe...?




posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

XxNightAngelusxX
"Knew what he was doing." What, was he doing something wrong?


Read BFT's post a couple of pages back.

There are some very credible rumours that he was not happy doing the show anymore.

This 'event' has given him and A&E the ability to part ways, while both get to 'stick to their morals'...so to speak.

That is what has been referenced as 'knew what he was doing'.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX
 


You are now one of my heroes. Perfectly stated.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

XxNightAngelusxX
Explain the difference, maybe...?


Freedom of speech, as outlined in the constitution, only protects you from those attempting to prevent you from speaking.

It does not protect you from how other free persons (or companies) will respond to your speech.

A&E has done nothing to mute him. They have, however, acted on his words. Therefore, they have not breached any laws pertaining to the constitutions freedom of speech.

In my opinion only, of course.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by antonia
 


Well, then I'd be equally firm to say the opposite is equally wrong. An American should not have to fear losing their job or livelihood, as the case may be, for opinions expressed outside the scope of the employment. It can be said he was interviewed strictly because he's on the show, but then, I'd say it's equal to say he's a Corporate Officer in a very unique company that happens to have a show running about it. It's not a clear A&E issue, but they MADE it their issue for political reasons. That's wrong, IMO.



It's very different when you are discussing a celebrity. Essentially, you're on the job all the time-You are the company, you are the product. So he was, in fact, expressing his opinion on the job. There is a wide range of opinions concerning the issue and and what I have repeated is what has been essentially stated by the court. Furthermore, it is likely there is a clause in his contract regarding conduct outside of the show.

As for the broader question, It's difficult for me to answer. We live in a time where almost everyone has a public media presence. Perhaps not a famous one, but a presence nonetheless. Many workers in certain retail fields have regular contact with customers outside of work. I have seen this personally with people asking these workers for advice concerning products outside of the store environment. In that context, it can be argued you are still functioning as a representative of their employer. People don't think about this as they live their lives. Voicing unpopular opinions can come back on the employer in that situation as more people are going to see that. Many of whom don't know you personally. They will simply see you as a representative of your employer. Morally, I am conflicted on this point. I do believe people have the right to hold their opinions, but I also believe people and employers have the right to freely associate with people of their choosing. This is more dangerous for me in the society I live in as I am expected to be conservative, christian and such. People can and do ostracize me for my opinions. Could this extend to employment? Certainly, I have no illusions regarding my prospects. If many people around here knew how I felt about many issues I would not be hired. I thus have to muzzle myself quite a bit in public. I am very selective who I associate with on social media sites because of it.

So, legally, the question is unanswered for the general public. I think it would be wise for people to remember this in daily life if they use social media platforms. It is common for employers to look for your data online and demand your passwords to see your activity. Until something is done about this on the national level to restrict it, then it will simply be a reality that your off duty activities can get you fired.
edit on 19-12-2013 by antonia because: opps

edit on 19-12-2013 by antonia because: opps



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Tazkven
reply to post by Logarock
 


Ain't it funny that the tolerance crowd are actually the most intolerable of all? Wielding what offends them as a sword to slay their foes and stifle those who simply disagree with them.


I need to make a thread about this. It's clear that people like me have to speak up more often, because the divide of misunderstanding could be bridged if we do. There IS a bad gay agenda, but it is run by people who do NOT represent the majority of queer folks. This cabal is now politically powerful, very rich, and all about just starting their own little secret multi-generational cabal so they can protect their personal interests just like a gay...er, an even gayer Skull & Bones.

But they crush anyone under their heels same as all the cabals. They're using "gay" to rile people up, turn us all against each other, while they hide behind the smoke and mirrors. The "Human Rights Campaign"/HRC is one of their fronts. Even LGBTWTFBBQ people are constantly trying to explain to well-meaning straight people that the HRC is bad, bad, bad. It's run by gay people, yes...a handful of very rich gay men whose gayness is just a pretext they exploit to get more power.

They don't give a darn about actual, real live queer folks. Not at all. This "Shocked, we are shocked" routine is for partisan Democrats. (No, I'm not a Republican either, but most visible media pandering is directed to Democrats -- y'all are correct about that.) It's for people who want to feel like they care but do nothing.

Icing Phil is the definition of "pretending to care while doing nothing".

I can't wait to call up my old friend and tell her that A&E is a huge champion of gay rights and that means she wasn't almost beaten to death when she was 14 for being seen holding another girl's hand. Yay, A&E have a magic gay time machine that works by firing people!

Oh wait. They don't. They're owned by Democrats and don't want to lose the votes of Democrats. Who, by the way, mostly also don't really care. They just peer-shame each other into pretending they do. Like they're huge fans of the show. "I don't know anything about that, and I hate it, but I do know I should be in charge of it." I don't see Republicans demanding that RuPaul's Drag Race be more inclusive of the conservative demographic. Though on second thought regarding certain scandals, maybe it already is.


Note: if you missed my previous post, I remain a fan of the show, and I think Phil is a good guy who gave an honest answer about what he believes. I'm pretty sure I can go on living in the world knowing that not every single person adores everything about me. It might be close for a while but I think I'll survive.
edit on 19-12-2013 by sepermeru because: edit button is my best friend



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

WilsonWilson
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


I dont think you know what quoate means, whic is odd because you understand paraphrase.
I dont think this would be a story if he had directly quoted scripture.
edit on 19-12-2013 by WilsonWilson because: (no reason given)


That is funny.

Yes his quote varies by a couple of words, if those couple of words caused all this national "offense" your point has been made.

Otherwise your posts look like the PC police. "You can quote scripture if you are a Christian, but only if you have every single word memorized verbatim, if you "paraphrase" (in the slightest possible degree) scripture you are worthy of being fired for your religion."

God Bless,
edit on 19-12-2013 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Hey. If this were an engineered push by the media, why is it that a lot of us already feel the way they're supposedly pushing? Many of us have been "liberal-minded" about social issues forever. I am not being pushed. I'm waiting for the societal mindset to get to where I am...


Maybe where you are. Where many are, the mindset isn't quite the same.

I am not "liberal minded' in any way. I am a conservative libertarian....and I agree with you as well. Which highlights the flaw in that discussion: most Americans aren't liberal or conservative. They only identify as such because they don't know any better.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Meanwhile, the TV company has HUGE publicity for their show ......



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

WilsonWilson
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


I dont think you know what quoate means, whic is odd because you understand paraphrase.
I dont think this would be a story if he had directly quoted scripture.
edit on 19-12-2013 by WilsonWilson because: (no reason given)


I fail to understand the relevance.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Freedom of speach does NOT mean freedom from consequences. Say something stupid and pay the price. It's not rocket science. It's common sense. Just like one cannot yell, 'FIRE!', in a crowded movie theater, one cannot express intollerent views in a nationally published magazine and expect to walk away scott-free. I don't care if this guy's a 'product of the 60's', or not. We're not in the 60's anymore.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Even if he had said what GQ posted, he has every right to say whatever the hell he wants. Since when did we have to be politically correct? And just how far does it go? Why has personal opinion become obsolete? If we cave, we lose. I have made it a personal endeavor to be more direct and speak my mind (OPINION). People respect me for it and they don't try to play mind games. I also get asked my opinion a lot because people know I speak the truth as I believe it.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

TownCryer
Freedom of speach does NOT mean freedom from consequences.


Which would make sense had he said something stupid, however, hysterically sobbing leftists are putting words in his mouth.

Which is how it works: Robertson Hates Gays!

Did he actually say anything close to that?

For leftists, facts are not the point.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I have a question: Is this a possible discrimination case? He was essentially fired for his Christian views.

I'm just curious. Earlier in this thread I stated it was not a legal issue but am not so sure now after reading more about it and thought I'd ask.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


When did the country become a population of cowards, afraid of offending even the smallest group?

I remember "SNL" offending everyone.

"In Living Color" offending everyone.

In my humble opinion, we've become a nation of sissies, drinking hot chocolate in our onesies, on our parents sofa.

When you can no longer laugh at yourself, then you have lost all rights to mock others.


Well said sir.

Sine when did freedom of speech end at the tip of another man ear?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


When did the country become a population of cowards, afraid of offending even the smallest group?

I remember "SNL" offending everyone.

"In Living Color" offending everyone.

In my humble opinion, we've become a nation of sissies, drinking hot chocolate in our onesies, on our parents sofa.

When you can no longer laugh at yourself, then you have lost all rights to mock others.


Well said sir.

Sine when did freedom of speech end at the tip of another man ear?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Oh, It's easier to be smarter than me.

I think the problem is I tend to view this more from a bottom-up perspective. You are arguing for a top-down power argument. 20 years ago they would have fired the man if he said nice things about gays. Society at large has become more tolerant of gays so upper level organizations have followed suit. Society at large is less tolerant of bigotry so the company is simply following that lead.

I will concede society can also be easily lead to other opinions however.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

peck420

XxNightAngelusxX
Explain the difference, maybe...?


Freedom of speech, as outlined in the constitution, only protects you from those attempting to prevent you from speaking.

It does not protect you from how other free persons (or companies) will respond to your speech.

A&E has done nothing to mute him. They have, however, acted on his words. Therefore, they have not breached any laws pertaining to the constitutions freedom of speech.

In my opinion only, of course.


Ehhh, okay, fair enough.

I still think that argument is a little thin, though.

When his other option is to sell out his beliefs to keep his job?

Meh. I think he's perfectly justified, generally.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


That's a crock.

A&E could simply do a disclaimer at the beginning with the show stating that they do not share the views of the show.

This has been done for years with other shows on different networks.

A&E is full of it.

And like I said before opens up the door to people being given the boot because someone complains about their beliefs.
edit on 19-12-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TownCryer
 


What did he say that was "stupid"? That men shouldn't sleep with lots of different women, that part is stupid? That people should be less greedy, is that part stupid? For once a guy actually does what peer-shaming propadandavores chirp constantly to demand, and lists a whole host of sins instead of fixating on the gay, and he still can't catch a break. In the same sentence with gayness and bestiality he talked about men being promiscuous with women. So if you think the "stupid" was some imaginary equation between being gay and bestiality, then he also just said that any straight man who sleeps with any woman he isn't married to is also equal to someone practicing bestiality. His remarks are perfectly clear, and they are not "stupid". They're not even offensive, unless the word has lost all meaning, which it apparently has.

If he is offending you, by which means will you defend yourself against what potential damage? See where this is going? An offensive action is one which necessitates a defensive response. Oh my gosh, take cover, a guy said stuff!



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join